Comments: To clarify, I do not have any reason to believe that the recipient of Ponez's actions coordinated in any way. That's why I didn't call this "secret diplomacy" because it appears to be one-sided. Nevertheless, I would argue that this is a severe abuse of the common sense rules of the game.

2013-01-01 14:34:56 - Ciglione: Yellow, I agree with green. I can't understand why you attacked me (mostly) and green given that you didn't have any chance to win the game.

If it is indeed true that he had no chance of winning this game (which is subjective; what he calls suicide, someone else might call a last-ditch effort to save the game), then how can you blame him for trying to lose the least points while doing so? Players don't have obligations to each other; rationally, they will do what is in their best interests.

Metsfanmax wrote:If it is indeed true that he had no chance of winning this game (which is subjective; what he calls suicide, someone else might call a last-ditch effort to save the game),...

Whilst I can, in general, see your point here.....

Metsfanmax wrote:... then how can you blame him for trying to lose the least points while doing so? Players don't have obligations to each other; rationally, they will do what is in their best interests.

...This part is dumb. Game throwing should never be justified by the potential point loss. The throwing of games just to reduce your point loss violates the spirit of the game and possibly the rules as well. It is a shame that there are players who still endorse this mindset.

I believe the expectations from players in a game are that each player plays to win. There are many different ways to achieve this and there will of course always be differing opinions on how this should be achieved. I think that the majority of players however will agree that the throwing of a game is at best bad form.

Metsfanmax wrote:... then how can you blame him for trying to lose the least points while doing so? Players don't have obligations to each other; rationally, they will do what is in their best interests.

...This part is dumb. Game throwing should never be justified by the potential point loss. The throwing of games just to reduce your point loss violates the spirit of the game and possibly the rules as well. It is a shame that there are players who still endorse this mindset.

I believe the expectations from players in a game are that each player plays to win. There are many different ways to achieve this and there will of course always be differing opinions on how this should be achieved. I think that the majority of players however will agree that the throwing of a game is at best bad form.

I take exception to your use of the term "game throwing," as if the player has no chance of winning (as red says) then this action is at worst simply helping to shape who the winner is, and at best a last-ditch effort to save the game.

Nevertheless, whether or not this is considered to be "bad form," it has consistently been ruled not to be an abuse of game rules. The best that can be said is to foe and move on, and be careful if you ever see this player in a future Conquer Cup game.

king achilles wrote:With this round limit setting, so is it a "crime" for any player who may have a slim or no chance of winning, to make any attack to anyone who may have a chance at winning the game?

no it is no offense as to what you just said above, but i don't see the part of including a comment about round limits this game was in round 5...

one thing though the player misses a shot comes back and makes these comments.

looking at the 2 players he took out they were the lower ranks of the 3 left. so obviously he threw the game to logiskal. and i agree this is a tactic used all the time in regular play casual games to save points, now here is the big but, Since you pay to play these games then someone should step in and put a stop to it..

if this was a tourney i was running i would.

1)ban ponez from taking part again2)issue the other 2 players with a free pass to the next ccup.

So your saying he should have attacked the highest ranked player or should go after specifically for the high ranked player and no one else. Automatically, he is guilty of throwing the game if he didn't do that?

The game was "Round 5" of Conquer Cup 4, not in the 5th turn of the game. It was the 20th turn, right before the limit expired.

Because of the turn limit, the winner was to be the player with the most troops on the board at the end of the turn. Ponez attack two players, killing about 50 and 75 troops respectively for each and losing around 120 himself. This means that he lost 50 troops compared to player 2, 70 troops compared to player 3, and 120 troops to player 1. The result was that his "chances" of winning decreased across the board with no potential upside. This wasn't a last-ditch effort to win, it was clear and intention suicide to "throw" the game to one player.

I would argue that the assumed behavior is for every player to maximize their chances of winning. Anything that could conceivably be seen as a pursuit of that end is justified (breaking treaties, intentionally skipping a turn, lying about troop placement, etc.) In contrast, I would argue that this behavior aligns closer to rules against farm accounts and secret diplomacy. The different is the lack of coordination between players, but the similarity is that one player's actions are specifically intended to benefit another player, rather than his/her own self interest in winning.

(I'm glad that people have joined this conversation, thank you for your input)

king achilles wrote:With this round limit setting, so is it a "crime" for any player who may have a slim or no chance of winning, to make any attack to anyone who may have a chance at winning the game?

In this specific situation... yes

these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

i agree with the "both players should get a free entry into the next cup" and shithead should be banned from cups... (although CC would probably rather have the 5 bucks than the integrity if i had to guess)

king achilles wrote:So your saying he should have attacked the highest ranked player or should go after specifically for the high ranked player and no one else. Automatically, he is guilty of throwing the game if he didn't do that?

no king a what i am saying is that he attacked 2 players stacks (which were the lower ranked players.) leaving the highest ranked player with all his troups. some could say he tried to win but would he not of went to eliminate one of them for a extra cash.or hit all players equally

king achilles wrote:With this round limit setting, so is it a "crime" for any player who may have a slim or no chance of winning, to make any attack to anyone who may have a chance at winning the game?

In this specific situation... yes

these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

i agree with the "both players should get a free entry into the next cup" and shithead should be banned from cups... (although CC would probably rather have the 5 bucks than the integrity if i had to guess)

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

I do wonder at times of the constant willingness to support bad gamesmanship. I'm not saying there should be punishment as its not against the rules but it is pretty bad form in the CC especially when people pay hard cash as an add on tournament. At the very least there should be a couple of free slots available for the next tournament

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

I do wonder at times of the constant willingness to support bad gamesmanship. I'm not saying there should be punishment as its not against the rules but it is pretty bad form in the CC especially when people pay hard cash as an add on tournament. At the very least there should be a couple of free slots available for the next tournament

You have got to make up your mind here. If it's only bad form and something that the community should collectively roll their eyes at, then there's no reason to compensate these people. If it's actually against the rules, then yes something should be done; but you have to be willing to argue that this should be against the rules in all cases first.

I have been following this game and what ponez did is unacceptable. I would remove the priviledge of the conquer cup bonze medal.He had the game lost and suicided on 2 out of 3 opponents jut because he is an asshole. I had him foed already for similar reasons. People payed 5$ to play this and reaching round 5 is loads of work. If he had any minimal chance to win, it would've been without doing any attack and having as much troops as possible. Throwing a game is part of the don't do's in the rules.

I mean come on, there are so many reports about stupid irrelevant games, they are games with 20 points at the end, this one's got an ipad and has been paid for and played for over 3 month.

This type of attitude is unacceptable, this guy reached rounf 5 so he knew what he was doing. He deserves to be stripped from the conquer cup medal he is supposed to win when this tournament ends.

I'm still in this tournament waiting for my round 5, if somene does this to me I would become batshit crazy here is C&A.

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, they've just said that they would be annoyed if they were the one who lost as a result of it. Well, sometimes you lose in this game due to factors outside of your control. If you aren't willing to risk your money given that this is true, then don't enter the Conquer Cup. The fact that you paid money to enter the tournament doesn't mean the rules of the game should change. Ponez paid money to enter the tournament too, and is probably disappointed that the other players played in such a way that forced him to lose. Should he be compensated too? Of course not, because you have no obligation to assist others in how you play.

Here's my argument:The "Rules" section explicitly states that:"Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits."

1) intentionally throwing a game is explicitly forbidden by the CC Rules listed above. Because Ponez sacrificed his own troops in a way that gave absolutely no conceivable benefit to himself but serves the sole purpose of giving the game to one particular player, this constitutes "throwing [the] game". That should settle the matter on face, but if not, I would argue additionally that...

2) The rules against "Farming," Secret Diplomacy, and Multiple Accounts are designed to prevent one player from intentionally acting on the behalf of any other player. Because Ponez acted not in his own interests but instead in the interests of another player (Lokisgal), Ponez was in violation of these rules as well. Because this act was one-sided, Lokisgal did nothing improper (and in fact condemned the action) and the violation rests solely with Ponez.

3) In defense of the Rules. I believe that the rules against throwing games or illegally coordinating undermines the basic principle of the game. The game works only when all players act in their own interest to win. Point are an added way of tracking player's skill to make more competitive games between like-skilled players possible. The goal is to win, and every player should try to do so. If the odds are 0%, then that player should allow the other players to attempt to win on their own merits. In any game - not just risk-style games - the fun of everyone participating is ruined if one player intentionally violates this principle.

nvanputten wrote:1) intentionally throwing a game is explicitly forbidden by the CC Rules listed above. Because Ponez sacrificed his own troops in a way that gave absolutely no conceivable benefit to himself but serves the sole purpose of giving the game to one particular player, this constitutes "throwing [the] game". That should settle the matter on face, but if not, I would argue additionally that...

This simply not what is meant by throwing a game. Game throwing occurs when you intentionally lose a game. Since Ponez did not intentionally lose a game, but (according to you) changed the course of a game he had already lost, he is not in violation of the rule preventing game throwing. It's just incorrect by definition, and the C&A team has over the years consistently agreed that moves like this don't constitute throwing the game.

2) The rules against "Farming," Secret Diplomacy, and Multiple Accounts are designed to prevent one player from intentionally acting on the behalf of any other player. Because Ponez acted not in his own interests but instead in the interests of another player (Lokisgal), Ponez was in violation of these rules as well. Because this act was one-sided, Lokisgal did nothing improper (and in fact condemned the action) and the violation rests solely with Ponez.

It could hardly be said to be one-sided. As has been pointed out in this thread, Ponez benefited by his move; he now loses fewer points than he would have, if either you or the other player had won. So there was a clear motivation for him to do what he did.

3) In defense of the Rules. I believe that the rules against throwing games or illegally coordinating undermines the basic principle of the game. The game works only when all players act in their own interest to win. Point are an added way of tracking player's skill to make more competitive games between like-skilled players possible. The goal is to win, and every player should try to do so. If the odds are 0%, then that player should allow the other players to attempt to win on their own merits. In any game - not just risk-style games - the fun of everyone participating is ruined if one player intentionally violates this principle.

Ok, so the argument comes down to this. You think that if a player absolutely cannot win a game, they should just let the game play out. I disagree for the direct reason that acting in your own best interests includes losing as few points as possible. Your argumentation fails because you suggest that we should act in our own best interest to win a game, but stop acting in our own best interest when winning the game is no longer possible. There is no good reason to uphold this standard, because most of the reason you want to win the game in the first place is to be recognized with the points you earn. The fact that the game may be less fun when people do things like this is why it is rightly considered to be "bad form," but it cannot be a reason why it should be precluded by the rules of the game.

One thing that occurs to me is that while it is obviously really bad form to do something like this in a Conquer Cup game, one might also argue that there is a larger problem here. lokisgal does indeed stand to benefit a lot in real life because of Ponez's decision, and this highlights a problem of what might happen when you have friends playing each other in Conquer Cup games. There may not be any secret diplomacy involved, but if two people are on good terms with each other, then one person might be tempted to sabotage the other players in this situation, simply because of this friendship. I don't know if there's any way to prevent something like this from happening, but it's something to consider. Seeing as lokisgal said he would foe Ponez because of that move, I doubt it happened here however

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, blah, blah, blah...

It appears to be against the rules as written. It also has been noted/warned (although a bit inconsistently) in c&a. I think they need to pick a side and stick to it. Either suiciding/game throwing is, or is not against the rules. Then they need to enforce their decision whichever way they decided.

KraphtOne wrote:these people paid money to play in this specific tournament. And this player intentionally threw the game towards a certain player... i can't imagine spending another dollar if this happened to me with no compensation to myself or punishment to the player in question...

No one has made a coherent argument for why it should be disallowed for someone to shape the winner in a situation where they have no chance of winning, blah, blah, blah...

It appears to be against the rules as written. It also has been noted/warned (although a bit inconsistently) in c&a. I think they need to pick a side and stick to it. Either suiciding/game throwing is, or is not against the rules. Then they need to enforce their decision whichever way they decided.

Thanks,

J

I agree that the decisions should be consistent. I also insist that again, this is not suiciding (according to the OP, the person had no chance of winning, so his action did not cause him to lose) and it is not game throwing (for the same reason). However, if there are incidents similar to this, where a player who had virtually no chance of winning altered the winner of the game for external motives, and it was warned by C&A mods, that is definitely something worth bringing up so that the mods can set a clear line down one way or the other. Does anyone have an example?

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

Once again, either it is or it is not against the rules. Suiciding/Game Throwing is something that happens quite frequently here, and it is not consistent or fair that one player gets a warning, one player gets a noted, and one player gets cleared for about the same offense.

If you don't believe that Suiciding/Game Throwing should be against the rules, then remove them and quit fielding those same accusations. Be clear in your rulings. If it is noted, it implies it was wrong but without enough evidence. Here you note it but imply he did nothing wrong. Lets not send mixed signals; he either did wrong or he did right.

I think some of the bigger problems/misunderstandings in c&a come from seemingly wishy-washy rulings that try to ride the line and are intentionally vague.

Conquer Cup games will have the same rules as like any other games in the website. Just because it's a Cup game, it does not mean that people should have a "legitimate" reason for attacking you and if they don't, they should be punished, banned, the game be nullified or everyone else is given the chance to advance.

There is no precedent here and if we set this new precedent, it can easily be exploited and everyone who loses the game can throw accusations to anyone who has attacked them saying that the guy didn't have a chance to win so when he attacked you, it was suicidal and therefore, you should advance to the next round or the game be deleted. If you want to set a precedent here, then it should apply to all games, not just Cup games. It is like in 3 player games where one player may have attacked one player more so the one being attacked accuses the attacker of cheating.

He may be guilty of deciding who the winner may be or tried to actually win it but we can not dictate a player to what his next move should be. This game shall be noted in case he does it anew (to any future games) and is suspicious again for suiciding or help dictate who the winner will be.

I'm troubled by the ambiguity here. The rules clearly say that throwing a game (or for that matter, other examples of "gross abuse") are against the rules. If intentionally sacrificing troops to give the game to one particular player isn't "throwing" then what is the definition you are using? Furthermore, your argument about precedent seems poorly applied to this. Unlike the example you gave, there is no conjecture or speculation here. It was the last turn of the game, and with no further moves the outcome of his actions was clear and absolute. It hurt his own position significantly and those of 2 other players to a lesser degree and helped 1 player in contrast. This is very different from someone being attacked over the course of the game. I agree with the need to be consistent inside and outside of tournaments. But why have rules if they aren't enforced? This seems about as clear cut as can be: he went from over 200 troops to 127 and left the leader with 200. If this game doesn't show sufficient proof of "throwing a game" then I have no idea what would be.

well i think metsfan and king a you are both wrong. metsfan and king a have you actually read the very short sentence in the rules surronding throwing of games... let me copy paste it...

Unwritten Rules

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits.

now where in this short rule does it say you have to have the chance of winning to throw the game it does not. what it does say you are not allowed to deliberately benefit from throwing the game. which this player has done he benefited by saving 5 or 10 points which is extra he would of lost if one of the others won the game which he took out of the game when he had no chance of winning. also there has been a warning given for this before from what i remember just dont have the time to look just now but will later. i have more to add to this and will after work